6 ms·

Because the intent isn't to terrorize or murder innocent people, but to hit "military" targets. It's akin to dropping bombs on military targets during WW II.

Because the intent isn't to terrorize or murder innocent people, but to hit "military" targets. It's akin to dropping bombs on military targets during WW II. Just because they are military targets doesn't mean innocent people aren't killed. So it's classified as something else. And before you go shooting the messenger, keep in mind your asking about classification. If you want to disagree and suggest that it's still murder, feel free to argue endlessly with others. But it's important to realize what you are then suggesting, and the ramifications. War sucks. Innocent die. Cue the pedantic replies.

coldtea 13y ago
>Because the intent isn't to terrorize or murder innocent people, but to hit "military" targets. (...) Cue the pedantic replies. Oh, the irony. That's a pedantic distinction, if I ever saw one. Not to mention nothing about it is correct (perhaps that's why you felt the need to use quotes for the word military). Such strikes are not done as part of war and do not target military targets -- they were used in places like Pakistan (the US was not at war with it last time I checked) and at functions such as weddings.
- sb23 13y ago
  Have actual weddings been targeted by drones?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - tdfx 13y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airstrike http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airst... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deh_Bala_wedding_party_airstrike http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deh_Bala_wedding_party_airstrik... I'm not sure whether the airstrikes were performed by manned aircraft or drones.
    - jasonlotito 13y ago
      Can you share the reason for why these weddings were targeted? I'm only wondering if the members might have been combatants or insurgents or terrorists? Or was their something about the wedding itself that made it a target? What is the US policy on weddings?
      - lostlogin 13y ago
        An aid worker who was in Afghanistan in the 1980 told me that people often carried weapons to weddings and fired them in the air at some stage. The weapons were ceremonial. Not sure how reliable the following is, and it refers to Pakistan, but it is interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Pakistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Pakistan
    - jafaku 13y ago
      Pretty sure it was drones. They just killed everyone, and then double-tapped to kill first responders.
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  > blah blah military in quotes I used it in quotes because I was thinking of cases where I'm not sure how it would be classified. Assumed base of operations that turns out to be false? Regardless, nothing as sinister as you imply. As for not being at war with Pakistan, would that make a difference to you?
  - burntsushi 13y ago
    > As for not being at war with Pakistan, would that make a difference to you? I think you missed coldtea's point. I suspect he pointed that out because he thought it would make a difference to you. e.g., "War sucks. Innocent people die." ... But we're not at war with Pakistan. So what? Drone strikes suck. Innocent people die?
cup 13y ago
Obligatory pedantic reply: Palestinians who blow up busses in Israel are hitting military targets (all israeli citizens undergo compulsory military training and are part of a reserves contingent ergo are legitimate military targets. Or: Flying a plane into the pentagon. I mean its not as clear cut as you want it to be. The dresden bombings didnt clearly target military objects. Its not as simple as classification when the one doing the classifying is so willing to act in a hypocritical grey zone.
- srean 13y ago
  I cant see why this comment is getting downvoted.
  - crdoconnor 13y ago
    Mob mentality.
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    Probably because he purposefully ignored mentioning the two non military buildings in NYC that were also hit.
    - itchitawa 13y ago
      "part of the support network either through willful ignorance or" this includes all Americans who pay taxes, vote for the government, etc. Ultimately everyone shares some blame but when we see someone who's more directly responsible than ourselves, we tend to blame them and forgive ourselves. As a non-America, I see Obama voters as responsible because he told them he would attack Pakistan with drones as part of his first election campaign.
      - calbear81 13y ago
        I agree that as an American who voted for those in power that I am partially responsible and would be a fair target. Living in a democracy means accepting that collectively we have chosen someone to make decisions on our behalf and even if we disagree we have chosen to operate under a set of rules that govern how we disagree and how we change things (election, etc.)
dobbsbob 13y ago
Actually, the intent is to terrorize. You are utilizing systematic violence to coerce an entire population for political reasons, and deliberately targeting or disregarding the safety of non-combatants to achieve this goal. There also isn't a war in Waziristan. Your comparison to WWII is total BS
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  Sorry but targeted drone strikes are the exact opposite of terrorism. If the US wanted to terrorize we could carpet bomb cities much quicker and cheaper than with drone strikes. I 100% agree that accidental killing of unintended targets is terrorizing the native population of countries where this happens, and also leads to creating more terrorists/enemies of the US than it possibly eliminates. Jeremy Scahill wrote a ~700 page book about this very subject that came out a few months ago. Dirty Wars. It is worth reading.
  - kubiiii 13y ago
    Not sure that "complete opposite" is the right term here. Drones prevent people to like sunny days, to go to school (and learn something else than becoming terrorists). Completely agree with the second part of your comment though. But accidental killing of unintended targets should at least : -be something the US apologize for, if possible directly to families, if possible by the highest rank official. -be compensated even if money doesn't heal wounds like that. If there are no consequences (both political and financial) to those strikes, targeting errors will never be a big deal.
    - res0nat0r 13y ago
      Drones are being used because it causes less unintended collateral damage than a bomb from a F-14. Never any collateral damage? No. Less? Yes.
  - lostlogin 13y ago
    If the EU starts flying drones over the US and killing wanted war criminals, would your views change? Killing is people is crude and unhelpful. It hardens the views of those who remain and creates a uniting cause.
petsos 13y ago
You seem very good at classifying the killings, but completely fail to classify the big picture by calling it a "war".
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  Here's the pedantic war reply I was expecting, despite the obvious fact that it's not legally a war. If it was a war legally, would targeting civilians be okay?
  - petsos 13y ago
    pedant |ˈpednt| noun a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning. Please explain to me how saying that an invasion is not a war is a minor detail.
rjuyal 13y ago
Few innocents died while killing terrorists. I see no harm in that. In any case that single terrorist would have killed lots of innocent. That innocent could be from USA, Russia, Israel, India. And at that time there will be hue and cry saying it is intelligence failure. Innocents will die either by terrorists or may be by US drones.
- eruditely 13y ago
  terrorists do not have a good kill death ratio
  - rjuyal 13y ago
    Then you are not in the country where bomb blasts are very common. Their KD ratio is real good.
abalone 13y ago
> It's akin to dropping bombs on military targets during WW II. You couldn't have picked a worse example. Innocent civilians were widely targeted in WWII. Entire cities were subjected to terrorist bombing campaigns specifically to "break the morale of the population which occupies it" and "make the people conscious of constant personal danger." WWII pretty much invented large-scale terrorism justified as military necessity. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_...
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  I'll admit I could have picked a better example, but I also made a point to specify military targets in my comment for a reason.
  - streetnigga 13y ago
    > I also made a point to specify military targets in my comment for a reason. Which is why the user above responded. US justification for these strikes is because they are deemed "military targets," and often the intel behind the strikes themselves is extremely tenuous. While on not the scale of WWII firebombing the terrorist aspects of it cannot be ignored. Much US government documentation on their strikes speaks of the psychological aspects of those under a drone's strike zone. They cast a terrorized population in terms of being "less prone to supporting Alqaeda Top Man #85032" or other nonsense that only addresses the social impact in the narrowest terms to ensure victory can be declared in some way by the author. In the end the population below still feels terrorized by the presence of "justice from above" with no due recourse. This is completely aside from what those in the US government wish to call it.
ekianjo 13y ago
Except that there is not war going on between Pakistan and the US. There should be no rationale to attack "military targets" on foreign soil because you have no authority there. Would the US tolerate Pakistan drones hovering above their schools and picking up targets at their will ?
- allochthon 13y ago
  For me, this is a key question. Another one -- would the US population allow drone strikes to take out terrorists within its own borders?

coldtea 13y ago

>Because the intent isn't to terrorize or murder innocent people, but to hit "military" targets. (...) Cue the pedantic replies. Oh, the irony. That's a pedantic distinction, if I ever saw one. Not to mention nothing about it is correct (perhaps that's why you felt the need to use quotes for the word military). Such strikes are not done as part of war and do not target military targets -- they were used in places like Pakistan (the US was not at war with it last time I checked) and at functions such as weddings.

sb23 13y ago
Have actual weddings been targeted by drones?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- tdfx 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airstrike http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airst... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deh_Bala_wedding_party_airstrike http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deh_Bala_wedding_party_airstrik... I'm not sure whether the airstrikes were performed by manned aircraft or drones.
  - jasonlotito 13y ago
    Can you share the reason for why these weddings were targeted? I'm only wondering if the members might have been combatants or insurgents or terrorists? Or was their something about the wedding itself that made it a target? What is the US policy on weddings?
    - lostlogin 13y ago
      An aid worker who was in Afghanistan in the 1980 told me that people often carried weapons to weddings and fired them in the air at some stage. The weapons were ceremonial. Not sure how reliable the following is, and it refers to Pakistan, but it is interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Pakistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Pakistan
  - jafaku 13y ago
    Pretty sure it was drones. They just killed everyone, and then double-tapped to kill first responders.
jasonlotito 13y ago
> blah blah military in quotes I used it in quotes because I was thinking of cases where I'm not sure how it would be classified. Assumed base of operations that turns out to be false? Regardless, nothing as sinister as you imply. As for not being at war with Pakistan, would that make a difference to you?
- burntsushi 13y ago
  > As for not being at war with Pakistan, would that make a difference to you? I think you missed coldtea's point. I suspect he pointed that out because he thought it would make a difference to you. e.g., "War sucks. Innocent people die." ... But we're not at war with Pakistan. So what? Drone strikes suck. Innocent people die?

cup 13y ago

Obligatory pedantic reply: Palestinians who blow up busses in Israel are hitting military targets (all israeli citizens undergo compulsory military training and are part of a reserves contingent ergo are legitimate military targets. Or: Flying a plane into the pentagon. I mean its not as clear cut as you want it to be. The dresden bombings didnt clearly target military objects. Its not as simple as classification when the one doing the classifying is so willing to act in a hypocritical grey zone.

srean 13y ago
I cant see why this comment is getting downvoted.
- crdoconnor 13y ago
  Mob mentality.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  Probably because he purposefully ignored mentioning the two non military buildings in NYC that were also hit.
  - itchitawa 13y ago
    "part of the support network either through willful ignorance or" this includes all Americans who pay taxes, vote for the government, etc. Ultimately everyone shares some blame but when we see someone who's more directly responsible than ourselves, we tend to blame them and forgive ourselves. As a non-America, I see Obama voters as responsible because he told them he would attack Pakistan with drones as part of his first election campaign.
    - calbear81 13y ago
      I agree that as an American who voted for those in power that I am partially responsible and would be a fair target. Living in a democracy means accepting that collectively we have chosen someone to make decisions on our behalf and even if we disagree we have chosen to operate under a set of rules that govern how we disagree and how we change things (election, etc.)

dobbsbob 13y ago

Actually, the intent is to terrorize. You are utilizing systematic violence to coerce an entire population for political reasons, and deliberately targeting or disregarding the safety of non-combatants to achieve this goal. There also isn't a war in Waziristan. Your comparison to WWII is total BS

res0nat0r 13y ago
Sorry but targeted drone strikes are the exact opposite of terrorism. If the US wanted to terrorize we could carpet bomb cities much quicker and cheaper than with drone strikes. I 100% agree that accidental killing of unintended targets is terrorizing the native population of countries where this happens, and also leads to creating more terrorists/enemies of the US than it possibly eliminates. Jeremy Scahill wrote a ~700 page book about this very subject that came out a few months ago. Dirty Wars. It is worth reading.
- kubiiii 13y ago
  Not sure that "complete opposite" is the right term here. Drones prevent people to like sunny days, to go to school (and learn something else than becoming terrorists). Completely agree with the second part of your comment though. But accidental killing of unintended targets should at least : -be something the US apologize for, if possible directly to families, if possible by the highest rank official. -be compensated even if money doesn't heal wounds like that. If there are no consequences (both political and financial) to those strikes, targeting errors will never be a big deal.
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    Drones are being used because it causes less unintended collateral damage than a bomb from a F-14. Never any collateral damage? No. Less? Yes.
- lostlogin 13y ago
  If the EU starts flying drones over the US and killing wanted war criminals, would your views change? Killing is people is crude and unhelpful. It hardens the views of those who remain and creates a uniting cause.

petsos 13y ago

You seem very good at classifying the killings, but completely fail to classify the big picture by calling it a "war".

jasonlotito 13y ago
Here's the pedantic war reply I was expecting, despite the obvious fact that it's not legally a war. If it was a war legally, would targeting civilians be okay?
- petsos 13y ago
  pedant |ˈpednt| noun a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning. Please explain to me how saying that an invasion is not a war is a minor detail.

rjuyal 13y ago

Few innocents died while killing terrorists. I see no harm in that. In any case that single terrorist would have killed lots of innocent. That innocent could be from USA, Russia, Israel, India. And at that time there will be hue and cry saying it is intelligence failure. Innocents will die either by terrorists or may be by US drones.

eruditely 13y ago
terrorists do not have a good kill death ratio
- rjuyal 13y ago
  Then you are not in the country where bomb blasts are very common. Their KD ratio is real good.

abalone 13y ago

> It's akin to dropping bombs on military targets during WW II. You couldn't have picked a worse example. Innocent civilians were widely targeted in WWII. Entire cities were subjected to terrorist bombing campaigns specifically to "break the morale of the population which occupies it" and "make the people conscious of constant personal danger." WWII pretty much invented large-scale terrorism justified as military necessity. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_...

jasonlotito 13y ago
I'll admit I could have picked a better example, but I also made a point to specify military targets in my comment for a reason.
- streetnigga 13y ago
  > I also made a point to specify military targets in my comment for a reason. Which is why the user above responded. US justification for these strikes is because they are deemed "military targets," and often the intel behind the strikes themselves is extremely tenuous. While on not the scale of WWII firebombing the terrorist aspects of it cannot be ignored. Much US government documentation on their strikes speaks of the psychological aspects of those under a drone's strike zone. They cast a terrorized population in terms of being "less prone to supporting Alqaeda Top Man #85032" or other nonsense that only addresses the social impact in the narrowest terms to ensure victory can be declared in some way by the author. In the end the population below still feels terrorized by the presence of "justice from above" with no due recourse. This is completely aside from what those in the US government wish to call it.

ekianjo 13y ago

Except that there is not war going on between Pakistan and the US. There should be no rationale to attack "military targets" on foreign soil because you have no authority there. Would the US tolerate Pakistan drones hovering above their schools and picking up targets at their will ?

allochthon 13y ago
For me, this is a key question. Another one -- would the US population allow drone strikes to take out terrorists within its own borders?